Tuesday, December 30, 2008

This picture, which I just saw on Reuters, breaks my heart. It's one of their "best photos from the past 24 hours." Here's the explanation as well.

"A Palestinian father of five young girls, who were killed in an Israeli air strike, mourns as he holds his wounded son, during their funeral in Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip December 29, 2008. Palestinian medics said five young sisters died in an air strike in Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza and three other young children were killed when a bomb struck a house aimed at the nearby abandoned home of a senior Hamas militant in Rafah."

Hamas - why have you continued to launch rockets into Israel? You are responsible for this.

Israel - you did this. Was there no other alternative? We live in this sick world of earthly kingdoms in conflict. Regarding this nothing has changed.

Hamas and Israel - can you rationalize your way out of this? NOTHING justifies this. We all should get on our knees and repent of the sickness we continue to bring into this world. Anybody for global repentance? Anyone willing to lead the way?

On Sunday, December 28, I preached out of John 12, which is the story of a dinner given in honor of Jesus. The dinner takes place at the home of a man called Simon the Leper. Probably, Simon is not a leper anymore. If he was, then he wouldn’t have a house. His leprosy has been cured. Arguably, it was Jesus who cured him, since there weren’t any other cures available.

Also at the dinner is Lazarus, the man Jesus raised from the idea in the village of Bethany. The name of that village today, in Israel, is El-Eizarya, which means “the place of Lazarus.” Ancient Bethany is famous because of Lazarus, who was brought back to life by Jesus.

Martha and Mary, sisters of Lazarus are at the dinner. So are Jesus’ disciples, to include Judas.

Martha, as usual, is serving – cooking, cleaning, making sure everyone’s needs are being taken care of. Imagine how grateful Martha and Mary must have been, to be sitting there with their once-dead brother Lazarus, in the home of ex-leper Simon?

Mary’s heart cannot be contained. She has brought with her a special gift for this occasion, a pint of a perfume called nard. This was worth, at that time, a year’s salary for an average worker. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington suggests this pint of expensive nard would have been an inheritance Mary had. It would be like your retirement savings, your 401K (if you have one), your entire Social Security pension.

Mary pours her entire 401K on the feet of Jesus, in a lavish, extravagant act of humility and love. She gives everything she has to him. Why? Because he has brought her brother back to life. If someone did that for you, how much would it be worth? Jesus tells the people that in doing this Mary has done “a beautiful thing.”

It’s at this point that we hear the voice of Judas, for the very first time in the gospels. Judas says, “I object! It’s a total waste of money! We could have sold this perfume and given it to the poor!” John 12 tells us Judas could have cared less about the poor. He did care, a lot, about money. He was the “treasurer” of the disciples, the “keeper of the money bag.” He would have liked the perfume to be sold, and the money placed into the bag he carried, because he often took out of the bag money to spend on himself.

The life of Judas is tragic. Because he has just spent almost three years walking and living and eating with Jesus. He had seen Jesus calm a storm, heal sick people, deliver people from demons, give to the poor, reach out to prostitutes and tax collectors, and even raise a dead person. In the midst of the most lavish act of love so far seen in the gospels, Judas says “what a waste.”

I’m now thinking about these two responses. I do not want to be Judas-like and quench extravagant acts of love to Jesus. I do want to be like Mary, whose love knows no bounds, being a sacrificial love that gives all to her Savior. Why would anyone do this? Why would I do this? Because I would not have a life if it were not for what Jesus did for me years ago when I finally called out to him. He rescued me out of a very dark place, and gave me much, much more than I ever deserved. How much “money” is that worth to me? If he’s done this to you, how much “money” is that worth to you?

I am sure the answer is: it’s worth giving everything we have to him and in service to him and to the cause of his beautiful kingdom, the purpose of which is to release captives from bondage and darkness.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

The beginning of the end has begun. The thing Muslims fear more than Christianity, Westernization, is growing in the garden of Islam.

See today's nytimes.com - "Young Muslims Build a Subculture on an Underground Book." The book is The Taqwacores, by Michael Muhammed Knight. I pre-ordered it today.

"The novel’s title combines “taqwa,” the Arabic word for “piety,” with “hardcore,” used to describe many genres of angry Western music." It's a novel about imaginary punk rock Muslims in Buffalo.

"The novel is “The Catcher in the Rye” for young Muslims, said Carl W. Ernst, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Springing from the imagination of Michael Muhammad Knight, it inspired disaffected young Muslims in the United States to form real Muslim punk bands and build their own subculture."

Young disaffected Muslims have been reading this for five years. Now, it's going to be a movie. For a lot of young American Muslims the book has become "a blueprint for their lives."

But one cannot be both Muslim and punk. One cannot be Muslim and criticize the Koran. One can't be Muslim and listen to Western music, drink, smoke pot, and lead prayers if you're a woman. The Taqwacores violates all these and more.

Muhammed Knight sounds like he's ona quest for the original Muhammed. Knight "said he wrote “The Taqwacores” to mend the rift between his being an observant Muslim and an angry American youth. He found validation in the life of Muhammad, who instructed people to ignore their leaders, destroy their petty deities and follow only Allah." Here's where I can see the whole thing breaking down, since Muhammed is definitely not Jesus, historically.

I'm looking forward to reading The Taqwacores as a way of following this attempt to reconstruct Islam according to Western values.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

In John 12:4-6 we read, after Mary sister of Lazarus anoints Jesus' feet with a pint of very expensive perfume, and then wipes his feeet with her hair: "4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it."

How could it be true that Judas was keeper of the money bag?

Craig Keener says this would not be a story later people would make up about Judas because of what’s called “the criterion of embarrassment... It is likely that Judas’s role as treasurer stems from genuine historical tradition... Appointing someone who misadminstrated funds could be scandalous, all the more if the one who mad the appointment were now claimed to be omniscient.” (Keener, John Vol. 2, 865)

My uncle Ernie died on December 17. Ernie was my mother's younger brother. Uncle Ernie and Aunt Ann have lived on the family farm in Elo, Michigan. Ernie was (I think) born there and never left.

My musical ability comes from my mother's side of the family. I remember Ernie as a self-taught musician who could, it seemed to me, play any instrument he out his hands to.

Ernie farmed the land, sold Husqvarna chain saws, raised dairy cattle, and built sauna stoves (among other jobs he had).

In the summers my family would travel from our home in Rockford, Illinois, to "the farm" and spend a week there. I always looked forward to those trips. And I always felt welcomed warmly by Ernie and Ann, and my cousin Jim, who is my age. The farm is in a beautiful Michigan upper Peninsula valley, carved out by the Otter River. My parents had moved from the U.P. when I was just a year old. My dad's heart never left there, really, and he at times talked about moving back, even though there were no jobs. Some of this got into me. I live at the furthest point in Michigan from my birthplace in the U.P. (Hancock). Whenever I travel north there's a sense that I belong up there, too.

Ernie rarely traveled far from the farm. Those were his roots, and he wasn't going to leave them. I'll always remember his smile. I can hear his voice right now if I try, and it gives me a good feeling. Ann told me that just before he died she told him "I'll see you soon." I know she will. As will I. All of this hope is grounded in the resurrection of Christ. For more information go here, and here, and here.

Friday, December 26, 2008

Linda and I saw "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." I was looking forward to seeing it. Now, just an hour away from the experience, I feel let down. Brad Pitt did a good job. The makeup was amazing. The story line is not.

The idea of a baby born as an old man who, throughout life, grows younger until finally he's a baby, is clever. But Benjamin learns little, and gives us no answers. The movie doesn't even get the questions right. This captures the essence of my frustration. What could have been profound slogs along in trivialities (like a lot of beer and sex).

Here's the life of Benjamin Button, briefly:

Born as an old man

Abandoned by his father

Taken in as a baby by a black lady who works in a home for seniors

Rejects "Christianity" (the healing service scene is ridiculous - not only does BB not get healed but the faith healer collapses and dies - no wonder faith has no place at all in BB's life)

Gets drunk as a kid and has sex with a prostitute, leaving him wanting more (giving "dirty old man" a new meaning)

Becomes a sailor

Has an adulterous affair with Tilda Swinton who, after it all, leaves him a note saying "Nice to have met you" (The movie wants us to feel sorry for the poor wife-stealing Button at this point)

Finds out who his real father is, rejects his embrace, then seems to connect with him

Has multiple meaningless sexual encounters that lead to no real relationships (Button can't keep his pants buttoned)

Cohabits with his childhood sweetheart (many scenes of Button unbuttoned)

Occasionally wonders how it'll all work out with him growing young and her growing old

Fathers a child

Abandons the child and his cohabiting partner because he won't be able to be an adequate father, thus trading one level of inadequacy for another, lower one (Thanks Dad...)

Moves to India trying to figure it all out and maybe bathe in the Ganges (Thanks Dad...)

Comes back as a teenager to freak everybody out because he just can't stay away

Goes away again

Comes back again, this time as a kid who's in the early stages of Alzheimer's

Is cared for by his ex-cohabiting partner and, mutatis mutandis, cohabits again

Dies in her arms, while looking at her knowingly (!!!)

And through it all I felt like I was also watching reruns of "Titanic," as old Cate Blanchett listens to her daughter narrate the tragedy

Benjamin Button's life is weird, but only in one way. Otherwise, it's sadly normal. I've met 80-year-old people who still act like middle-schoolers, and Button reminds me of them, the difference being that he ages into looking more and more like them. I'm not curious about what makes him tick because I suspect there's not much there except a second hand moving backwards.

If the Lions win this Sunday against Green Bay Olga's Restaurant will give you a free Olga sandwich. The coupon is here.

A few weeks ago my son Josh and I went to the MSU-North Carolina basketball game at Ford Field. It's the first time either of us had been there. What a facility! During halftime we went to the Lions Store. It's a pretty big store. Even though 20,000 fans were at the b-ball game, in the store there was only Josh and I, and 8 young sales people. Lions t-shirts were on sale for $10 (rather than $20-$40). One t-shirt was silver and blue with the words spread across the chest "Believe In Now." I almost bought one of the shirts. Josh said he didn't know if he'd be able to wear it.

Believe in now. "Now" is 0-15, and I believe it. Therefore, I believe in now. "Now" is what is happening at the present moment. "Now" is, well, now.

1. Now.2. Therefore, now.

"Now" will be different next week. The Lions will not be 0-15. "Now" will have changed. In this regard we have two possible "nows."

1. On Dec. 29 the Lions will be either 0-16 or 1-16.2. I will be eating a free Olga sandwich on Dec. 30.3. Therefore, the Lions will be 1-15.

P1 is true.

P2 is possibly true, not probably true, and of course not necessarily true (otherwise the game need not be played). Believing in now won't affect the outcome. Therefore, I believe in then, because I care more about the Olga than the game.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

I am now feasting on Charles Taylor's phenomenal book A Secular Age. Of which Alasdair MacIntyre says, "There is no book remotely like it. It will be essential reading." Of which Robert Bellah says, "This is one of the most important books written in my lifetime."

Those are big recommendations, and Taylor deserves them. I am engrossed in his words, which so clearly articulate things coherent with my experience and understanding. Here's one sentence which says it all: "Naivete is now unavailable to anyone, believer or unbeliever alike." This strikes me, mostly, as true. I say "mostly" since, as I read his book, I occasionally think of counterexamples to his thesis. Having been a pastor for 36 years, I wonder if I have not met many people who have not been so secularized in the sense of living daily life from a theistic "background." They seem, to me, "naive." I expect Taylor would disagree with this. (For Taylor "naive" does not mean "unintelligent.")

What does this sentence mean? Taylor begins Chapter 1: "One way to put the question that I want to answer here is this: why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say, 1500 in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy, but even inescapable?" (25) For Taylor all this is about the "conditions for belief and unbelief." We have to place this discussion "in the context of... lived experience, and the construals that shape this experience." (13) "This is what philosophers, influenced by Wittgenstein, Heidegger or Polanyi, have called the "background."" (13) Initially, to me, this sounds like worldview or paradigm discussions. As I read further I'll be interested to see if Taylor distinguishes "background" from these. They all are, nearly always, "tacit" (Polanyi). They allow for belief or unbelief.

Taylor thinks it's not easy to answer his question above. But he admits that some people find it easy to answer. They argue that "modern civilization cannot but bring about a "death of God". I find this theory very unconvincing." His book proceeds to explain the loss of religious naivete in another way.

“If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers. If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over. If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime.”

How many Christological errors are contained within these three sentences?

1. Christ never "stood with the people" on anything. The people, even those closest to him, had a hard time understanding this.

2. Christ opposed the rule of Satan. Jesus held to two-kingdom theology. The real battle, as Paul later wrote, is not really against other people.

3. Christ did not come to fix prevailing and ailing global economic and political systems. He didn't "do that in his lifetime," as Ahmadinejad wrongly claims. The prevailing religious-political leaders wanted him to side with them against the Roman empire. He refused to do this.

Ahmadinejad sounds like the self-righteous Pharisee who thanked God that he wasn't like the hated tax collector.

Christ doesn't stand with America, either. Jesus is far too revolutionary and radical to stand with any earthly empire. He came to save the whole world from their sins and deliver them out of the kingdom of darkness. This cannot be done by aligning with some socio-political system. Jesus once said that his kingdom is "not of this world." He said we are to love our enemies, not wage war against them. Christ lived out his message as he went to the cross, forgiving his enemies as he hung there. Both Ahmadinejad and America are a long way from the real Jesus.

When someone is said to have lied, their lying seems to consist of: 1) a proposition made; 2) some kind of claim that the proposition is true; 3) the proposition is false; 4) the utterer of the proposition intends to deceive or something like that.

A "proposition" is a sentence that is either true or false.

Just because an uttered or written proposition is false does not mean the utterer is lying. They may be wrong. If I say "The Detroit Lions won last Sunday's football game," and it is false that the Lions won the game, then I am not necessarily lying. I might have forgotten who actually won the game, and thought the Lions did win the game.

"Lying" does not seem to fit the utterance of non-cognitive sentences, such as commands. If we're at dinner and I say "Please pass the salt," it's difficult to see how this could in any way ever be a lie. If there's not salt on the table, and I know there's no salt on the table, then the utterance is odd. Perhaps I am making a joke. Or, if I'm about to go into open heart surgery and I hear the surgeon say "Please pass the salt," I can't easily conclude that the surgeon is lying about something.

Could lying ever be non-propositional? Could one ever utter a command and be said to have lied? What if I request that you "Pass the salt," but I know the salt shaker is really a bomb, and that you'll be injured if you pick up the salt? If I say, "That's an ordinary salt shaker, and not a bomb," and I know this proposition is false as I tell you this, then it seems that I have lied.

If persons always lied, then we could never know if the statement "Persons always lie" is true.

To be able to claim that a person lied it seems we must have access to the truth. Otherwise I don't see how we could meaningfully say "Human beings have a propensity to lie." Don't we have to know the propositional content of a statement to be able to make that kind of claim?

First a theory of truth is required. Only from that can a theory of lying be developed.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

In Titus ch. 1 Paul writes about a group of Cretans called "the circumcision group." He says:

"11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth."

This is paradoxical. If a Cretan says "All Cretans are liars," then he is lying, and the statement "All Cretans are liars" is false, which means it is true that "Not all Cretans are liars." The 4th-century Greek philosopher Epimenides, himself a Cretan, reportedly said "The Cretans are always liars." But this statement is not paradoxical, since it can be true or false. "All Cretans are liars," stated by a Cretan, is paradoxical. It's been called the "Liar's Paradox," and is the logical equivalent of stating "This sentence is false."

In today's nytimes.com we see something that reminds us of the Liar's Paradox. The essay is called "A Highly Evolved Propensity for Deceit." "In a comparative survey of primate behavior, Richard Byrne and Nadia Corp of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland found a direct relationship between sneakiness and brain size... Much evidence suggests that we humans, with our densely corrugated neocortex, lie to one another chronically and with aplomb." "Our lie blindness suggests to some researchers a human desire to be deceived, a preference for the stylishly accoutred fable over the naked truth."

"One safe generalization seems to be that humans are real suckers... We're desperate to believe that what our loved ones say is true."

But if these things are true, then why believe this? What is "naked truth," and how could we possibly get at it? If humans have a "propensity" to lie and to want to be lied to, by what means do we adjudicate between a lie and a truth? How have the proponents of this theory themselves avoided chronic deceitfulness, and are we suckers for believing them?

Such are the problems within evolutionary naturalism. See Plantinga, "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" - in part here, and in full in Pojman's philosophy of religion text.

Monday, December 22, 2008

My guitar-playing friend Bill Long sent me an e-mail re. the biblical Greek word sozo. Bill wrote: A while back I was thinking about the Jimmy Page "Zoso" emblem, and I thought it would be neat to spell "Sozo" in the same kind of font. While I was surfing the internet, I found this web site - I think they make replacement capacitors for vintage tube amps..." http://www.sozoamplification.com/index.html

Sozo is the Greek word for Salvation. It was used in the new testament to describe the salvation of God. It is the salvation that only comes through the name and person of Jesus. It means complete deliverance from your current disposition, psychologically, physically, and eternally. Body, mind and spirit. It means deliverance from bad health, poverty, broken emotions. He offers his hand, please take it.

Strong's Number: 4982Original Word swñTransliterated Word;

SozoVerb1. to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

a. one (from injury or peril)

1. to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health

Saturday, December 20, 2008

At economist.com I just read Why Music? "Biologists are addressing one of humanity’s strangest attributes, its all-singing, all-dancing culture." The tool: human evolutionary theory. Music has, obviously to evo-naturalists, evolved to confer some sort of selective advantage. Within this noetic framework music has a "function." What might that function be?

One theory of the function of music is this. "Around 40% of the lyrics of popular songs speak of romance, sexual relationships and sexual behaviour. The Shakespearean theory, that music is at least one of the foods of love, has a strong claim to be true. The more mellifluous the singer, the more dexterous the harpist, the more mates he attracts." Music's function is for gaining a sexual partner.

I pause here. I am now thinking of some wedding receptions I have been to. And DJs I have listened to. In my part of the world here's how we do this. The bride and groom dance to "Unchained Melody" or "Endless Love" or some equivalent song. Then the father of the bride and bride dance to "Butterfly Kisses" and there is a major meltdown happening among the guests. Then, out of nowhere, the DJ plays "Super Freak," the bride gyrates sexually before her husband, and we are forced to watch this. This is followed by "Y.M.C.A." and "The Chicken Dance," and we are forced to participate in this (the alternative is to sneak back to your table and pretend you are eating). The interesting thing here when it comes to evolutionary theory is that all the arm-flapping functions, prethematically, as mate-attraction. If this explanation is sufficient I now feel embarrassed to be homo sapiens.

Which raises the meta-theoretical question: If music's function is for gaining a sexual partner, what is the function of theorizing about what the function of music is? Evolution-wise it must have a function. I'm guessing it's about conquering enemy territory. Theorizing is about expanding the land and "the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat." A theorizer is a male moose lowering its head to reveal its antlers. Theorizing is revolutionary, war-making activity. There are a lot of careers out there to be lost, and they won't go down easily. I theorize, therefore I am male (mostly), and I come to conquer. That's my theory, written as my horns lower towards my computer screen, preparing for a possible counter-attack.

I theorize about the evolutionary function of theorizing. I theorize, therefore I theorize. It's a strange question-begging loop, having an ad infinitum quality. Such is my condition if evolutionary naturalism is sufficient to explain human behavior.

Friday, December 19, 2008

"A team of Franciscan archaeologists digging in the biblical town of Magdala in what is now Israel say they have unearthed vials of perfume similar to those that may have been used by the woman said to have washed Jesus' feet.

The perfumed ointments were found intact at the bottom of a mud-filled swimming pool, alongside hair and make-up objects, the director of the dig conducted by the group Studium Biblicum Franciscanum told the Terrasanta.net religious website."

"President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are appearing in Italian nativity scenes this year, alongside the baby Jesus and wise men, according to Naples craftsmen selling figurines in the run-up to Christmas."

Recently Linda read Kris Vallotten's Purity: The New Moral Revolution. She told me it's one of the best books she's ever read on this subject. For her to share this with me is significant, since she and I have read tons of stuff on this over the years. So I'm reading it now, too. We're recommending this book to a lot of people. We continue to meet people who are in lust, not love. The sex god (as Rob Bell calls it) is alive, well, and destroying a lot of lives out there. Sexual purity, on the other hand, is refreshing, freeing, what real love is about, compelling... and, sadly, rare.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

I just got a nice little gift from Oxford University Press - a three-month free subscription to Oxford's philosophy journals + access to 200 more Oxford journals. Fun!

So, when I went to libraries to study, I usually picked up a copy of Mind and looked at it. So here I am reading an essay by philosopher Judith Baker called "Rationality Without Reasons." I'm interested in this because of my interest in Plantinga's idea of warranted belief, which argues that it's rational to believe in God without arguing evidentially.

Baker's article isn't Plantingian in this sense but it's in the ballpark. She "challenges the assumption that reasons are intrinsic to rational action." Very interesting. Perhaps her work could sync with Plantinga's. (Mind, October 2008)

Now I'm reading a review of John Searle's Freedom and Neurobiology. I am truly fascinated by this topic. The problem of free will, according to Searle, is this: "How are the conscious processes that constitute the experience of free will realized by a neurobiological system? In particular, how can the operation of a conscious and free self be realized in a neurobiological system?" The reviewer notes that Searle offers two solutions, both of which he (Searle) finds unacceptable. "The problem of free will, Searle reminds us, has been debated for centuries and we are nowhere near a satisfying solution."

For my own remembrance I now cite an article in the British Journal of the Philosophy of Science by U of Notre Dame professor J. Allen Pitts, entitled "Why the Big Bang Singularity Does Not Help the Kalam Cosmological Argument for Theism." Pitts thanks William Lane Craig and others for discussions that contributed to this essay. (December 2008)

As I'm browsing several academic journals whole sitting at my kitchen table I am again amazed at how accessible such information has become.

Years ago I studied Persian dualism, aka Zoroastrianism. The Chicago Tribune reports that in the last 50 years their local Zoroastrian community has grown from 50 to 600. The growth is due to immigration of Z-ians from countries like India and Iran.

The Tribune article says: "Founded by the prophet Zoroaster in what probably was about 1400 B.C., Zoroastrianism teaches that God, the good Ahura Mazda, is opposed by the evil Angra Mainyu, but that good will ultimately vanquish its foe.Beginning in 549 B.C., the belief flourished for more than 1,000 years as the state religion of three empires centered in what is now Iran, and scholars cite its importance in influencing three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.There are 125,000 to 200,000 Zoroastrians worldwide, most of them in Iran and India, where they fled persecution in Islamic Iran and during the Mongol invasions."

Monday, December 15, 2008

Today's cnn.com has an article called "Falling Asleep in Class? Blame Biology." I've got some "thoughts" about this.

1. This semester my "Philosophy of Religion" class is at the horrifically early hour of 9 AM. Some students arrive in class looking like they've just landed from a 24-hour flight from Bangkok. They are very, very tired. I'm not surprised. One of the reasons we chose to home-school our second son was because in the public school he was listening to a boring history or science lecture at 8 AM. Our home-schooling classes started later than that.

2. What's the deal about teens falling asleep in early classes? The argument runs this way:

a. Teens are not getting enough sleep.

b. This is due to the decisions of educators and the human biological need for sleep.

c. Therefore, teens are not to blame for their sleepiness.

The scientific explanation is this: "Sleepy teenagers may not be able to help it, researchers say. Blame it on the early school start time and their circadian rhythms: the mental and physical changes that occur in a day."

With this in mind I now digress into some philosophy.

3. The article's title, if taken seriously (let's do it for fun), implies students are not responsible for falling asleep in early classes. Biology makes them do it. Which means... they're not responsible?

4. I think the correct answer is: no and yes. "No" to their being responsible when it comes to their circadian rhythms. "No" to their being responsible if educators don't take these rhythms into account in scheduling. "Yes" to their being responsible if they choose to stay up all night and arrive at class with no sleep whatsoever.

5. If students don't have a choice at all then it seems that "they are not responsible." How could that be true? It could be true if all human behavior can be reduced to biological constraints. If all "choices" are ultimately explicable in terms of biology then free will is, at most, an epiphenomenon with no causal efficacy. Today's neuro-reductionists seem committed to such a position. At most, "making a choice" is like the rainbow that appears over Niagara Falls. It's beautiful, but in no way affects the physical falls. Neuro-reductionism claims there are no non-physical realities. All that is, is material. Things such as morality and making choices are sheer biological phenomena. If that's true then we are to blame biology for all human activity, including the choices educators make. Here's where things get very strange.

6. If that is true, then you and I, as we read about teen sleepiness, cannot "blame" biology or "feel compassion" towards sleepy students, since "blaming" and "feeling compassion" with a subjective recognition that "I am now feeling compassion" are examples of first-person subjective consciousness (qualia). Which brings us to "the hard problem of consciousness." Neuro-reductionists acknowledge it, and "trust" that it will one day be explicable. As for me and my brain, I'm with those who say it is, in principle, unsolvable. If it is to be ever solved it will require a paradigm shift to something we-know-not-what that will allow us to meaningfully "recognize" the solution and at the same time ascribe both the recognition and the solution and the ascribing ad infinitum to "biology." To me it will be something like proving I exist without assuming "I" exist to give such a proof.

7. I prefer to think that one can't really blame biology for sleepy students but rather blame either the choices students make or the choices educators make about when to hold classes or both. "Blaming" requires a personal agent who is the "blamee." A theory of why students are sleepy requires a theorizer.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Well, I feeling a bit sad today because "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake is getting dissed. I wanted it to be a great movie. Probably, it's bad. After reading some scathing reviews I turned on the TV, surfed a bit, and landed on the 1951 original. And I was lifted out of my sadness and felt like a kid again, mesmerized by Michael Rennie, waiting to see my good friend Gort, attending to and appreciating the sound track, responding to Mr. "Carpenter's" death + resurrection...

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

This cartoon is an example of the informal logical fallacy of false cause (non causa pro causa - when something is erroneously posited to be the cause of something else, but in reality the conclusion is not dependent on the observed temporal relationship between the imagined cause and its effect; lit., "not the cause for the cause").

Since the final exam for my Logic course is a week from today I'm posting this as a warning to my students that this kind of argument won't work for two reasons: a) the informal fallacy it commits; and 2) astrological signs have no causal efficacy.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Why do some childhood events stay with you? Like "Gort" has stayed with me. I'm 59 years old and met Gort 50 years ago. He's resurfaced, awakened by the soon-to-open remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still." Could the original be my favorite all-time science fiction movie? Probably yes.

The story as I remember it brings the alien Klaatu (beautifully rendered by Michael Rennie) to earth, in love and in power. We fearful, threatened earthlings misunderstand and kill Klaatu. Klaatu's powerful robot, Gort, gets angry. Love has been rejected. Power gets exerted. Earthlings are about to get hurt.

The power of Gort is power restrained by the love and wisdom and curiosity of Klaatu. If Klaatu is the Gospels, Gort is the Apocalypse. If Klaatu is the Son, Gort is the Four Horsemen. Or, Gort is God. Instead of applying a final solution after Klaatu dies, Gort raises Klaatu from the dead.

In "Day" you had to wait to see Gort. This made the film better. "Day" takes the road less traveled, which is: delay gratification. Then, unlike "Waiting for Godot," Gort shows up. When he does, the earth and every kid watching the movie stood still. It was a holy moment pierced by arguably the most famous words any extraterrestrial ever said - "Gort, Klaatu barada nikto." Klaatu barada nikto. I wonder how many others never forgot those words? "Say them to Gort," Klaatu tells the earthling Helen, "should I die." "Gort - stop - don't kill anybody!"

As a kid I felt less interested in love and wanted to see power break forth. It's not fair to crucify pure innocence. When this happens there's the desire for revenge. But my inability to let love rule and win places me among the fearful, non-trusting earthlings who cry out "crucify him!" I wanted Gort to wipe us all out because we deserve it. Instead, because "Klaatu barada nikto," apocalpyse got delayed, and there's a resurrection instead. It's a great story, isn't it? A story that has stayed with me through the years.

I love to take pictures. My favorite "how-to" website is Ken Rockwell's here. Rockwell is a brilliant photographer who insists that the camera makes NO DIFFERENCE, because it's all about the shooter. Of course. You could be holding a Taylor guitar, but it's not the guitar, it's the player. A real guitar player can make beautiful music even on a Teisco (my very first electric guitar!).

A recent post proves Rockwell's point, as the picture to the right won a photo contest and was taken by an amateur using a point-and-shoot Canon Powershot.

The Home for Bible Translators and Scholars, Inc. (HBT) is a nonprofit ministry supporting translators and scholars from around the world to deepen their knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. The Home offers a six-month study program especially designed for Bible translators and consultants. The program is offered in partnership with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Hebrew University is fully accredited with about 25,000 students.

Since 1995, the Home for Bible Translators has trained over 80 Bible translators and scholars from 29 countries representing 53 languages. Through God’s strength, these translators, and their teams, will make it possible for over 45 million people to read the Old Testament in their own language.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

In one of my Philosophy of Religion classes today I presented Craig and Copan's moral argument for the existence of God. Premise 2 of the argument is: Objective moral values (OMVs) exist. How do they argue for the truth of that? The answer is: OMVs are discovered rather than argued for. In other words, they are properly basic beliefs rather than evidentially proven conclusions.

For example: People who think it's OK to boil babies for fun are morally wrong. Why? Because I can see that boiling babies for fun is morally wrong, as you can too. And I don't see any reason to doubt this. But isn't that just one's subjective opinion? No. It is objectively true that boiling babies for fun is morally wrong. So anyone who thinks it's not morally wrong to do that is wrong. (Here the study of properly basic beliefs and noetic frameworks comes into play.)

One of my students objected to my saying this; viz., saying that I am right and people who think otherwise (in this example) are wrong. It seemed, to this student, arrogant of me.

I asked them, "Do you think I am wrong to claim that I am right and people who believe boiling babies for fun are wrong?" They said, "Yes."

"That's a very strong moral judgment. You think I am wrong." Does not that seem as arrogant as my statement?

It's very difficult to avoid making strong moral claims. The person who thinks it's wrong to force your opinions on other people are themselves forcing one of their opinions on us. It's instructive to note that such a belief ("It's wrong to force your opinions on others") is itself recent, narrow (not universally shared), and Eurocentric. A lot of people past and present don't believe such a statement to be true. It's a function of a certain noetic framework.

How about sharing your opinion that, say, some person is wrong because they believe ___? Surely that's not forcing an opinion on anybody. Or, saying something like, "Anyone who believes ____ is wrong." Is it wrong to do that? If it is, then it's self-defeating. If it's not, then there should be no problem when someone expresses such beliefs and even such knowledge claims.

Every knowledge claim marginalizes. That truth cannot be used to prove that, therefore, there are no knowledge claims at all.

(This is not exactly how my discussion today went. And, the student who dialogued a bit with me about this is one of the very best students in my class, and adds much to this particular class, to include asking questions that a lot of others are thinking but themselves dare not ask.)

Saturday, November 29, 2008

The good news is that "Quantum of Solace" is not the worst movie ever made. That distinction goes to "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

But QS is bad. Precisely because Daniel Craig has not one quantum of solace. Not one tiny indivisible entity of inner peace. And his face shows it. Craig's is the most monodimensional face in any movie I've ever seen, except for the robot Gort in the original "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I'm not expecting James Bond to break out in Jim Carrey-type grins but Sean Connery's Bond had more than an occasional twinkle in his eye. Craig's eye is as mischievous as a quark (but even quarks have six flavors).

I had trouble following the story line for the same reason I have trouble understanding quantum physics. The theatre I was in had poor sound. Linda and talked about this and then agreed that even though we had trouble hearing the words we didn't miss anything anyway.

I thought, to this kid I sound like Chuck Norris. I felt a warm feeling inside. I felt bigger, taller, stronger, more dangerous, more capable. And the only words I said were the ingredients of a sandwich.

Since then I've talked out loud while driving alone, just listening to the sound of my voice. A few times I've thought, "I do sound like Chuck Norris." I speak, and my enemies tremble.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe.”

- Hebrews 2:18

We’re not in control. Agreed? Things we don’t control include: the global economy, what’s happening in India today, what’s happening in Bangkok today, other people, our own addictions, the weather, the common cold, gas prices, nations, the past, the future, most of what’s happening now, and death. Because these things are fundamentally out of our control or anyone’s control, attempts to control them sometimes get ugly, such as when we try to control other people.

All these uncontrollable things shift and move beneath our feet and before our eyes and make life uncertain. Sometimes the very foundations of our life get shaken and we get fearful. This has happened to me and will happen again, I am certain.

Many years ago my life was shaken. “I” was out of control. My choices and their results left me in a fearful condition. It was then that I looked to Christ. And something inside me shifted. The shift was from a heart that trusted in fundamentally uncontrollable things to life in a “kingdom that cannot be shaken.” This shift has been, for me, THE event of my entire life. Now I spend most of my time seeking the kingdom of God, and studying the things of the kingdom, and looking to God for strength to live these things out. I’m not the perfect kingdom citizen. But, like others I know, I’m the recipient of God’s kingdom. The result is that I am thankful. And it causes me to “worship God acceptably with reverence and awe.”

PRAY, WATCH, BE THANKFUL

“Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.”

- Colossians 4:2-3

I think there are a lot more people who call themselves “Christians” who are not devoted to prayer then there are those who are devoted to prayer. I don’t mean to judge people re. this, but for years I’ve led conferences and taught on prayer throughout the United States and around the world. “Devotion to prayer” is lower in America and Europe than in Third World countries. I have found that the more one enters into the Third World the more devotion to prayer there is. Why?

Because the more stuff one has creates the illusion of un-neediness. And, a person has to be very, very busy to acquire all the stuff, so “there’s no time to pray.” In reality we’re all very needy. In America, mostly, we just don’t realize it.

The same, I think, is true for “watchfulness.” The American way of watching is passive, unengaged media-gazing. Media-deprived people know what it is to be watchful, like the farmer standing in his field gazing deep into the horizon searching for rain. True watchfulness follows from true neediness.

Paul instructs us to be devoted to prayer and to watchfulness. Real watchfulness contains an element of mystery. The media-illusion casts a spell of “knowledge” on people, masking the truth that this world we live in, to include our own selves, remains fundamentally a great mystery. The more mystery, the less we know we’re not in control, the more watchfulness emerges.

I find it interesting that Paul next instructs us to devote ourselves to being thankful. Thankfulness follows from prayerfulness and watchfulness. This is because a person who is devoted to prayer and watching has a great sense of need and dependency. When one is needy, then provision is not so taken for granted. Hence, thankfulness emerges. Gratitude happens.

Give your life to being thankful. Focus on thankfulness. Love being thankful. Make thankfulness a priority. Dedicate to thankfulness. Get a prayer life. Get a watchful life. Get a thankful life.

OVERFLOW WITH THANKFULNESS

“So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.”

- Colossians 2:6-7

At age 21 I received Christ Jesus as Lord. I welcomed Jesus. The result is that for the past 38 ½ years I have lived in him. Not perfectly. Jesus is God, I am not. But my receptiveness to Jesus has so changed my life that I wonder if I’d even be alive today were it not for him. I have sunk my roots into the deep, rich, life-giving soil of God’s kingdom and never left. If anything good has come into me and through me to others it’s Jesus, flowing through me.

And I am thankful. I feel thankful today. I don’t always feel that way, and when that happens I’ve lost the forest for the trees. I see the darkness and miss the light. I rarely feel ungrateful. Sometimes, I’m just in neutral – not ungrateful, but definitely not overflowing with thankfulness.

To “overflow,” literally, means to have more than a full cup. When a cup of water is full it overflows. Overflowing is the indicator of fullness. Therefore to be filled with God’s Spirit is to necessarily overflow. Part of this overflow is a thanks-shaped heart. It’s a wonderful way to live this life. It’s life sans bitterness. It’s for every day, every week. It’s even for Thanksgiving week.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

(This is especially for those who heard my message last Sunday out of Luke 18.)

In Luke 18:31 we read: Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.

This is high Christology; viz., the claim that Jesus makes regarding himself being the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish Messianic promises. There are things that are going to unfold and happen in Jerusalem when Jesus gets there. It’s like Jesus us saying to his disciples, “You’ve heard of these things before. You’ve longed for these things to happen. Now’s the time.”

So what did the prophets write about? I’m going to present the reasoning of Dr. Michael Brown , using his synopsis found in Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. I find his analysis compelling. He’s a great scholar, having done his Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from NYU. And, he’s a Jew who has found Jesus to be the Messiah. Here are Brown’s bullet points. (Many of these are simply direct quotes from Brown’s interview.)

1. Long ago, as recorded in the book of Genesis, God gave specific promises to the tribe of Judah regarding the covenant God made between himself and Israel. For example, Genesis 49:10 says “The scepter will not depart from Judah.” There was a man named Jesse who was of the tribe of Judah. Jesse had a son named David.

2. Isaiah 11:1 says “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” The word “Branch” is commonly used to refer to the Messiah. The idea is that from Jesse, who is from the tribe of Judah, there’s going to come a “Messiah” who will bear fruit. There’s going to be a lasting kingship through David.

3. In Jeremiah 23:5 God said that he will raise from David’s line “a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely.”

4. In the book of Isaiah we see references to someone called “the servant of the Lord.” Which means, “Messiah.” “Anointed One.” (The Greek words for “the Messiah” are “the Christ.”

5. Isaiah 42:1-4 say that the Messiah will not stop [falter] until he brings justice to the earth.

6. Isaiah 49 says that the “servant of the Lord” has the mission of re-gathering the tribes of Israel to bring them back to God.

7. In Isaiah 49:6 God says he will not only re-gather Israel. We read: “I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

8. Isaiah 50:6 speaks of the Messiah’s voluntary suffering.

9. In Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 we read that the Messiah will be highly exalted but first will suffer terribly. He will actually be disfigured in his suffering. The words here say the people of Israel didn’t get it. They thought he was suffering for his own sins and wickedness. They didn’t realize he was bearing their sins, suffering for them, and by his wounds there was healing for them. Then these verses speak of his death and his continued life after that.a. Lee Strobel asked Michael Brown the question – “How important is this passage?”b. Brown said: “It’s almost as if God said, ‘I want to make it so absolutely clear Yeshua is the Messiah that it’s undeniable.” I almost feel as if God would have to apologize to the human race and to the Jewish people for putting this passage into the scriptures when it so clearly points to Yeshua if he didn’t really mean it.”

10. Now we narrow things even more. In 2 Chronicles 7 God says if Israel’s sin reaches a certain level he will destroy the temple [Solomon’s], exile the people, and leave them in a state of judgment.a. God says to the people of Israel – “Forsake me… and I will destroy the temple in Jerusalem.”b. And, sure enough, all of this happens in history.

11. The prophet Daniel prays in Daniel 9 that God would have mercy.a. God gives Daniel a revelation about the temple being rebuilt.b. Before this new temple is destroyed, Daniel is told that several things are going to happen.c. This includes the bringing of everlasting atonement – the final dealing with sin.

12. The Second Temple is built.a. The prophet Haggai lives to see this second temple built.b. But it’s nothing like the first temple, Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s temple was a stunning physical structure, far more imposing than the second temple. It also had the glory of God there. When sacrifices were offered, fire came down and consumed them.c. The second temple didn’t have the presence of God or the divine fire.

13. BUT… Haggai said the glory of the second temple would be greater than the glory of the first temple. I love these verses – read closely:a. Haggai 2:6-9 - 6 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. 7 I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD Almighty. 8 'The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD Almighty. 9 'The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty. 'And in this place I will grant peace,' declares the LORD Almighty."b. God would fill the second temple with his glory. But when God says he’ll fill the temple with glory, He’s talking about filling the temple WITH HIS PRESENCE.

14. Then the prophet Malachi, who lived later, says God HIMSELF… will come to his temple and purify some of his people and bring judgment on others. Malachi uses a Hebrew term that always refers to God himself – the Lord – he will come to this Second Temple.

15. The second temple was destroyed in AD 70. The prophesied visitation of God had to take place before the second temple was destroyed. So guess what’s happening, e.g., a passage like John 7. "On the last and greatest day of the Feast [of Tabernacles – God, you have provided… like You did in the wilderness…; food…, and water. SO… SEND RAIN!!!], Jesus stood [in the temple courts]… and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. 40On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." 41Others said, "He is the Christ.""

16. The prophecy of Haggai is fulfilled when Jesus enters the temple courts and says things like “I am the light of the world,” and “If you are thirsty come to me.”a. In this regard Michael Brown says – “So it’s not a matter of maybe there’s another one who’s the Messiah. If it’s not Jesus (“Yeshua”), then throw out the Bible, because nobody except him accomplished what needed to be done prior to AD 70.i. What divine visitation did take place if not for Yeshua?ii. When else did God visit the second temple in a personal way?iii. Who else atoned for sin?iv. How was the glory of the second temple greater than the first?v. Either the Messiah came two thousand years ago or the prophets were wrong and we can throw out the Bible.vi. But they weren’t wrong. Yeshua is the Messiah – or nobody is.” (Strobel, Case for RJ, 198)

For the full text of Strobel’s interview with Brown pick up The Case for the Real Jesus. It’s an excellent read – the entire book.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Here's a nice post by Ben Witherington on Calvinists who seem to think they've achieved "intellectual certainty" re. their theological position. Witherington wonders not only how such a thing is possible, but finds such a quest unbiblical.

Doug Groothuis has reviewed J.P. Moreland's Kingdom Triangle. I was pleased to see that Groothuis agrees with Moreland's rejection of cessationism. Groothuis writes:

""The restoration of the Spirit's power" fills out the last leg of the kingdom triangle. Although Moreland graduated from a seminary that teaches that the supernatural gifts of the spirit (such as healing and prophecy) have ended (cessationism), in the past few years he has experienced some of these gifts himself and has reevaluated what the Bible teaches on these matters. He has come to believe that this dimension of Kingdom living is crucial if we are to respond effectively to the deadness and darkness of our time. I completely agree. While Moreland does not give a detailed exegetical or theological argument for the ongoing manifestation of supernatural gifts, he points out that the old cessationism has been losing its credibility among many, that Christians in the global south are experiencing these gifts in powerful ways, and that he himself has experienced or witnessed the miraculous dimension of the Kingdom of God in the past few years. What Moreland advocates is not classical Pentecostalism or the Charismatic renewal of the 1960s and 1970s, but the "third wave" approach of the Vineyard movement. This is an orientation that does not emphasize a second "baptism of the Holy Spirit" or insists on the speaking of tongues. It rather seeks God's supernatural agency for healing, prophecy, and other signs and wonders." "

J.P. will be one of the main speakers at our HSRM conference in Wisconsin this coming summer 2009.

Monday, November 24, 2008

In my Philosophy of Religion class I'm wrapping up Alvin Plantinga's "Religious Belief Without Evidence," in Pojman's Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Plantinga's essay is followed by atheist Michael Martin's "A Critique of Plantinga's Religious Epistemology." Here Martin gives the rather famous "Great Pumpkin objection' in the form of the "voodoo objection."

A little over a year ago I wrote Dr. Plantinga some questions from Martin's essay, to which he kindly responded. I read Plantinga's letter to me to my class this morning.

After the class one student told me she read Paul Draper's essay in Pojman: "Evolution and the Problem of Evil." She asked how Plantinga might respond to that. I told her about the recent infidels.org debate/dialogue between Draper and Plantinga found here.

Here's one of Plantinga's points to Draper, the point which I have been explaining in my class.

"Isn't there a problem, here, for the naturalist? At any rate for the naturalist who thinks that we and our cognitive capacities have arrived upon the scene after some billions of years of evolution (by way of natural selection and other blind processes working on some such source of genetic variation as random genetic mutation)? The problem begins in the recognition, from this point of view, that the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they have one, is not to produce true beliefs, but to promote reproductive fitness.[3] What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior. That our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even suggest that our belief-producing processes are reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could be adaptive, but our beliefs mainly false."

"Darwin himself apparently worried about this question: "With me," says Darwin,the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?[4]"

"Toward the end of the book, Dawkins endorses a certain limited skepticism. Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a na�ve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.